A Theory for the 90s:
Traumatic Seduction in Historical Context

Abstract

During the last five years of the 19th century,
Sigmund Freud developed most of the core psychodynamic and
developmental insights that became psychoanalysis. Freud's
articulation and subsequent partial repudiation of a specific
etiology ("seduction") theory for the neuroses represents a crucial
chapter in the transformation of his positivist science into a modern
hermeneutics. These changes in Freud's theoretical stance are
complexly involved with his self-analysis and early clinical
practice, and they form an important chapter in the intellectual
history of psychodynamic psychology. The pre-psychoanalytic theory of
traumatic etiology was a significant advance in epidemiological
thinking and remains an important model for studying the effects of
early emotional experience on personality development and adult
psychopathology.

Psychoanalysis, as a related body of clinical technique,
interpretive strategy, and developmental theory, took shape in a
decade centered on 1900, spanning the period between the publication
of Studies on Hysteria (Breuer & Freud, 1895) and Three
Essays on the Theory of Sexuality (Freud, 1905). Within this
decade of fertile intellectual activity a four-year span, comprising
the papers outlining the "Seduction Theory" (Freud, 1896a. 1896b,
1896c) and the completion of The Interpretation of Dreams
(Freud, 1900), is of special interest for an assessment of the
process by which psychoanalytic psychology evolved. Recent
biographical work on Freud has also revealed the richness and
complexity of the personal influences on his theorizing during these
crucial mid-life years. One thinks, for example, of Anzieu's
(1975/1986) Freud's Self-Analysis, Balmary's (1979/1982)
Psychoanalyzing Psychoanalysis, Kr_ll's (1979/1986) Freud
and His Father, and a series of papers by Swales (1982, 1983,
1989) concerning the subjective dimensions of Freud's early work.
This new biographical work underscores the value for Freud
scholarship of the material contained in his letters to Fliess
throughout the 1890s (Masson, 1985). Reexamination of Freud's early
published work in light of new biographical information offers the
possibility of more fully understanding the core tensions informing
all of psychoanalysis, and of locating Freud's discourse more
appropriately in modern thought.

The aspect of Freud's work with which I am concerned here involves
his transition from an empirically-articulated and (at least in
principle) refutable theory of specific traumatic etiology for the
neuroses in the middle 1890s to a less testable but more heuristic
theory of psychodynamics and interpretation at the turn of the
century. This intellectual exegesis has much to teach us as we
approach the end of our own century of modernity, and Freud's early
work proves strongly resonant with recent critical perspectives in
history, criticism, and psychology (cf. Bruner, 1990; Gay, 1988;
Spence, 1982, 1987). I will summarize Freud's initial theorizing
regarding the effects of childhood trauma on the disposition to
neurosis and relate these theoretical changes to his clinical
practice and his self-analysis during the year following the death of
his father, Jacob Freud, in October, 1896. As the other papers in
this set attest (Coleman, 1994; Hartke, 1994; Salyard, 1994), Freud's
theoretical moves during this crucial period are richly connected to
his personal struggle to understand himself. On the other hand, work
as theoretically complex and heuristic as Freud's in the period
1895-1900 demands to be understood in its philosophical and
scientific context as well.

Freud's Early Theories of Neurotic
Etiology

Freud's early writings on clinical phenomena make a fundamental
distinction between two classes of psychopathology: the
psychoneuroses or "neuro-psychoses of defence" (Freud, 1894,
1896b), including hysteria and obsession-compulsion, in which
personality structures resulting from defensive attempts to deal with
traumatic experiences in childhood predispose the individual to later
psychopathology; and the "actual neuroses" (Freud, 1898),
including anxiety neurosis and neurasthenia, in which contemporary
causes suffice to explain a psychopathology of adult onset.
Neurasthenia, or "nervous exhaustion," was a common psychiatric term
in Freud's day, describing the presumed physical and emotional
consequences of excessive stress on the nervous system. It was a
common diagnosis where no organic cause could be found for vague
physical complaints. Freud defined "anxiety neurosis" in an 1895
paper and described the stressors that characteristically produce
neurotic anxiety. These are primarily in the realm of sexuality,
Freud argued, and include a variety of sources of sexual frustration:
coitus interruptus, impotence, and anxiety over pregnancy (Davis,
1990b).

Freud's speculation about the causes of psychopathology at this
time assumed that both forgotten childhood trauma and a variety of
adult stresses could cause neurosis, and that their influence was
additive: a significant childhood disposition or a congenital
physiological weakness could lead to the emergence of a
psychoneurosis as a response to average levels of adult stress, while
exceptional stress could produce an actual neurosis even in the
absence of clear disposition. Since he believed that the most
prevalent and problematic adult stresses where neurasthenia and
anxiety neurosis were concerned were in the realm of sexuality, Freud
studied the details of sexual satisfaction and frustration among his
bourgeois Victorian peers and patients (cf. Ellenberger, 1970). By
the middle of the 1890s he had become an advocate of sexual
expression and orgiastic satisfaction for both sexes. Any emotional
or physical interference with the full cycle of sexual arousal and
satisfaction could serve as a cause of anxiety neurosis or as a
contributing factor in psychoneurosis. And since, in Freud's view,
female sexual gratification in intercourse depended on the male's
completion of adequate foreplay and intromission, "it is positively a
matter of public interest that men should enter upon sexual
relations with full potency" (Freud, 1898, p. 278 -- emphasis in
original).

Many of the draft manuscripts and notes sent by Freud to Fliess in
the early 1890s concern the psychopathological effects of incomplete
coitus and of other sources of sexual frustration. "Draft B." mailed
to Fliess in February, 1893 and titled "The Etiology of the
Neuroses," begins with the assertion that "neurasthenia actually can
only be a sexual neurosis" (Masson, 1985, p. 39; emphasis in
original), and Freud attributed neurasthenia in males to masturbation
and to "onanismus conjugalis -- incomplete intercourse in
order to prevent conception," which may function in a cumulative
fashion or in conjunction with other factors (Masson, 1985, pp.
40-41). Whereas male neurasthenia typically begins after puberty and
expresses itself clearly in the patient's 20s, Freud suggests, female
neurasthenia in married women is often "derived from neurasthenia in
a man," and "in that case there is almost always an admixture of
hysteria and we have the common mixed neurosis of women" (Masson,
1985, p. 42).

The late 1890s saw a fundamental transformation of Freud's
clinical and theoretical frame of reference, as he formulated a
distinctive psychology combining both the scientific and the
humanistic currents in his intellectual milieu. By reconstruction of
Freud's interests as a student at the University of Vienna in the
1870s, McGrath (1986) has shown that the formulation of
psychoanalysis 20 years later was in part an attempt at synthesis
between the idealist philosophy of Brentano and the positivist
reductionism of Br_cke (cf. Ellenberger, 1970). As he found his own
rhetorical voice in the self-analytic years of 1896-1899, Freud
advanced two arguments about the relation of childhood to adult
sexual experiences: first of children as the objectsof
adults' perverse assaults and later of children as subjectto oedipal desires and hostilities directed at their parents.
In the first instance fathers and other care-givers were alleged to
have raped children; in the second, children were alleged to have
imagined raping their mothers, and to have elaborated fearful
fantasies of their father as a result. The early theory claimed to
have identified the distinctive (logically necessary) cause of the
common neuroses, while the second claims to be a universal psychology
of personality development. Some children have been abused, according
to Freud -- but all have experienced Oedipus complex. The first
theoretical position, adequately corroborated, would have assured
Freud a modest chapter in the history of scientific psychiatry; the
latter, although still problematic as science, has become a core
intellectual attitude of the modern era. From an empiricist concern
with detecting, unearthing, and detoxifying the residues of actual
traumatic events in the patient's past, Freud moved to a hermeneutics
of desire in which the emotional connotations rather than the
facticity of childish memory shape the neurotic process and point to
its cure.

By the time Studies on Hysteria (Breuer & Freud, 1895)
had gone to press, Freud's clinical attention was primarily on the
psychoneuroses, and he set out to articulate the reasons common
stresses such as marital sexuality gave rise to florid hysterical or
obsessive symptoms in some, but not other, individuals. He seems to
have become concerned with problems of child abuse in part because he
saw reconstruction of the abusive history as evidence for a
critical-period view of neurotic development: any genital stimulation
of a very young child was almost certain to be traumatic because of
the child's primitive emotional and cognitive resources and would
give rise to psychological defenses (repression, reaction-formation,
undoing) that would dispose the affected person to neurosis under
even moderate adult stress.

Freud's early theoretical positions are recorded primarily in his
letters to Wilhelm Fliess (Masson, 1985) and in volume three of
the Standard Edition, titled "Early Psychoanalytic
Publications." The 14 short pieces comprising volume three span a
7-year period and are not contrived as a coherent whole, yet they
display Freud's theoretical concerns and his style of argumentation
at the dawn of psychoanalysis. The set of published papers traces the
evolution of Freud's thinking from his early alignment with Charcot's
theory of hysteria (Freud, 1893) as the consequence of heredity
(degeneracy, 'famille n»vropathique') with incidental
environmental contributing causes ('agents provocateurs'),
through the collaboration with Breuer (Breuer & Freud, 1895), to
his own articulation of distinctive etiological courses for the
"neuropsychoses of defence" (hysteria, obsession, phobia) with a
distinctive childhood sexual trauma in each (Freud, 1894, 1896a,
1896b, 1896c). Freud clearly believed at the time that this
etiological work would be the basis for his appointment to an
appointment to an academic medical professorship. During this period
Freud outlined, but never produced, a major treatise on neurosis. He
seems to have planned to synthesize his clinical work and articulate
his nascent views on interpretation and psychosexual development in a
book on the distinctive course and treatment of the common
psychoneuroses (Masson, 1985, pp. 178-179, 205; Freud, 1896b, p.
162-163, n. 2). In March, 1896, he described to Fliess writing on a
sheet of paper "as a young poet tends to do," the title of a next
work on the neuroses, behind which "looms a second and more beautiful
work -- Psychology and Psychotherapy of the Neuroses of Defense --
for which I am allowing myself years of preparation and into which I
shall put my whole soul" (Masson, 1985, p. 178).

Freud's primary concern in these early psychiatric and
neuropsychological works was with the specific etiology of the common
neurotic disorders, i.e., with the developmental preconditions
under which prevalent subsequent life experiences such as the debut
of sexual intercourse after marriage would give rise to one or
another psychopathological condition. This concern with articulating
the distinctive, developmentally necessary, features of the premorbid
development of neurotics spanned the period of Freud's collaboration
with Josef Breuer, as reported in their 1893 "Preliminary
Communication" and in the 1895 Studies on Hysteria (Breuer
& Freud, 1895). The Freud/Breuer treatise described hysteria in
terms of symptoms that were the reified symbolic representations of
traumatic memories thereby kept unconscious and prevented from normal
decay in intensity. "Thus," Freud asserted in his 1897 abstract of
Studies, "hysterics suffer mainly from reminiscences" (Freud,
1897, p. 244). Why some individuals might be especially
susceptible to such reminiscences Breuer and Freud largely attribute
to heredity. In this view hereditary disposition was the
necessary cause of hysteria, and specific traumatic events --
whether in childhood or at the onset of the adult illness -- were
incidental, incapable of producing psychopathology except where a
predisposition existed.

"Seduction"

Freud borrowed the form of this argument, but not its content, in
his own contributions the following year. He had in mind in 1896 an
etiological theory focusing on ego-incompatible childhood
experiences as the sources of susceptibility to the class of
later illness he had labeled "neuropsychoses of defense" (Freud,
1894), because the core dynamic of each illness was the patient's
warding off of the traumatic memory by means of psychological defense
mechanisms -- repression in hysteria, undoing and reaction formation
in obsession. Although the sources of these defences were held to be
physical acts and their physiological effects on the child, the
critical explanatory constructs Freud employed even in his early
theorizing are primarily psychological, as Garcia (1987) has
convincingly argued. This new theory reassessed the relative
contributions of hereditary and of early environmental causes of
psychopathology (Freud, 1896a) and specified the childhood erotic
experiences which were precursors to the adult neurosis (Freud, 1895,
1896a, 1896b, 1896c, 1898). These experiences were in general ones
Freud's society -- like our own -- considered to be instances of
sexual abuse. It was a corollary of this theory of traumatic etiology
that behind every neurosis there stands a perversion, separated by a
generation and expressing itself as abuse of the child who will years
later become neurotic (see Laplanche, 1987/1989, pp. 107-109). As to
whom these perverted abusers of the child might have been, Freud
variously mentioned adult strangers, nursemaids and other
care-givers, and other children (Freud, 1896b, p. 164; 1896c, p.
208). Strachey has noted (Freud, 1896b, p. 164, note 2) that Freud
seemed reticent in the 1896 publications about naming fathers
as abusers of their children, although he had repeatedly mentioned
them in his letters to Fliess. Despite the usual characterization
this early etiological position as the "seduction" theory, the notion
that the child might be moved to cooperate in the sexual events --
might in fact be seduced as well as abused -- developed only
sporadically in the period immediately following Studies on
Hysteria. The idea of the child's becoming an active participant
in precocious eroticism already points toward the idea of "infantile
sexuality," on which Freud would later base so many of his
psychoanalytic formulations. While this revised theory did not deny
the role of hereditary susceptibility in many cases, the focus was
quite different. Now universal stages of child development
were associated with vulnerability to particular classes of traumatic
event. The new theory cast hysteria, obsession, perversion, and
anxiety neurosis as alternate consequences of childhood trauma; and
Freud's attention was thus focused on critical periods of child
development and on classes of early experience predisposing the
future patient to one or another syndrome, as well as to stressful
details of adult life evoking symptomatology in predisposed
individuals (Freud, 1898, p. 279).

As of 1896, for example, Freud argued that hysteria was the
post-pubertal result of having played a passive role in
childhood sexual episodes, while obsession-compulsion suggested that
the (somewhat older) child had been moved to active arousal by
childhood seduction. Freud's articulation of this sexual-trauma
etiology of hysteria and obsession was presented to Fliess in
October, 1895, as Anzieu (1975/1986, p. 161) has noted. Hysteria,
Freud affirmed, is the result of a "presexual sexual shock,"
while "obsessional neurosis is the consequence of a presexual
sexual pleasure" (Masson, 1985, pp. 144; Anzieu, 1975/1986, p.
161). Freud's concern in this period was not only with explanation
but with amelioration of the adult neurosis by means of restoring the
lost memories to consciousness (Freud, 1896c, p. 193). Freud
commented in the next letter that he was convinced both disorders are
"in general, curable -- not just individual symptoms but the
neurotic disposition itself" (Masson, 1985, p. 145). A fortnight
later Freud credited a patient with the clinical confirmation that
"sexual shock" in the form of "infantile abuse" caused the later
hysteria (Masson, 1985, p. 149).

The patient apparently referred to by Freud, identified throughout
the Fliess correspondence as "E.," seems to have been Freud's first
long-term male analysand. I have argued in a recent paper (Davis,
1990a) that "E."'s treatment coincided with -- and served as evidence
for -- Freud's movement away from a traumatic theory of neurotic
etiology and toward psychoanalysis proper. While early in the
treatment of "E." Freud represented the task of therapy as uncovering
evidence of real childhood trauma, by the conclusion of
therapy it was the patient's need to experience his childhood
as abusive that seemed central (Davis, 1990, p. 194; Masson, 1985, p.
409). Finally, the personal experience of the analyst was as crucial
as that of the patient, with Freud comparing "E."'s agoraphobia to
his own anxiety about train travel and attributing both neuroses to
similar infantile Oedipal wishes. By this time Freud was also
intensely involved -- for both personal and professional reasons --
in speculation about the arrangement of events in memory, and this in
turn forced on him problems of ascertaining the accuracy of recalled
events. These vexed questions led him to try a variety of
formulations about memory organization, from which he began to
produce the modern, fully psychological, conception of the mind we
recognize as "Freudian." At this point the basis had been laid for a
developmental psychology of emotional relationships and a therapeutic
technique in which exploring the attachment to the analyst would be
as important as the recovery of lost memories. It was the more
explicit or "special" version of the seduction theory that Freud
"abandoned" in 1897, as Laplanche has argued (Laplanche, 1987/1989,
pp. 104-116). The "general" theory that gradually replaced the
specific, of which both Freud's pivotal 1899 paper "Screen Memories"
and The Interpretation of Dreams are the result, became
psychoanalysis.

Re-evaluating the Seduction Theory

As noted above, this fertile period of theoretical reformulation
culminated, not in an explicit statement of Freud's new position on
the neuroses, but instead in a hermeneutic work on the meaning of
dreams, in which the factual basis for mental phenomena is of merely
ancillary interest (as "day residues") and the unconscious wish must
always be inferred from a fragile array of associative links among
the imperfectly recalled dream elements. Instead, after The
Interpretation of Dreams, psychoanalysis developed gradually
around a series of partial case histories and theoretical attacks on
component problems for Freud's new discipline, with the clinically
sparse Three Essays on the Theory of Sexuality (Freud, 1905)
as his major subsequent discourse on etiology.

The degree to which Freud changed his mind about the seduction
theory, and his reasons for doing so, have attracted a great deal of
attention in recent years (cf. Masson, 1984; Garcia, 1987). Most of
these discussions have referred to Freud's own stated reasons in a
famous letter to Fliess from September 1897, 11 months after the
death of his father. In one of the most striking passages from the
Fliess correspondence, Freud reported his loss of conviction about
the seduction theory (his "neurotica") and articulated the
reasons for his change of mind. In light of the careful scrutiny this
letter has received in recent discussions of Freud (see McGrath,
1986; Kr_ll, 1979/1986; Balmary, 1979/1982), it is rather surprising
that the entire set of reasons Freud gave for abandoning his
"neurotica" has received little attention. Freud mentioned
several motives for his change of mind, classed in groups.

The continual disappointment in my efforts to bring a
single analysis to a real conclusion; the running away of people who
for a period of time had been most gripped [by analysis]; the absence
of the complete successes on which I had counted; the possibility of
explaining to myself the partial successes in other ways, in the
usual fashion -- this was the first group. Then the surprise that in
all cases, the father, not excluding my
own,[2] had to be accused of being
perverse -- [and] the realization of the unexpected frequency of
hysteria, with precisely the same conditions prevailing in each,
whereas surely such widespread perversions against children are not
very probable. The [incidence] of perversion would have to be
immeasurably more frequent than the [resulting] hysteria because the
illness, after all, occurs only where there has been an accumulation
of events and there is a contributory factor that weakens the
defense. Then, third, the certain insight that there are no
indications of reality in the unconscious, so that one cannot
distinguish between truth and fiction that has been cathected with
affect. (Accordingly, there would remain the solution that the sexual
fantasy invariably seizes upon the theme of the parents) (Masson,
1985, p. 264).

Freud's concerns are presented as two sets, the first including a
variety of problems with using the patient's recollections, the
anamnesis, to establish the correctness of the etiological theory:
the seeming interminableness of many of his analyses; early
(pre-therapeutic, counter-phobic) terminations of seemingly ideal
patients; the lack of full therapeutic success even when the
childhood memory seemed to have been fully recovered; and the
availability of alternate explanations for partial successes. The
second set had to do with the implausibly central role of fathers in
the abusive experiences recalled by neurotics, and the consequent
need in view of Freud's causal assumptions (i.e., that
childhood trauma was necessary but not sufficient to produce the
later neurosis) to assume a very high prevalence of father-child
incest. One consideration -- that perverse acts against children
might be common -- was epidemiological, while the other -- that
fathers, including Freud's own, stand condemned -- is
Oedipal/psychoanalytic. The concern that, if the theory were correct,
the abreaction of remembered traumas should produce remission of
symptoms suggests a causal argument like that advanced by Breuer and
Freud and partially carried over into psychoanalysis, although
largely ignored in the post-Freudian literature (cf. Meehl, 1973).

The third of Freud's criticisms of his earlier position -- having
to do with the difficulty of establishing that any long-term
memory was factual -- was the most telling, and the most
over-determined. This was to be the argument of his brilliant short
paper on "Screen Memories" two years later (Freud, 1899). This issue
-- the practical impossibility of reliably distinguishing
memory from wish in the unconscious -- points directly
to central issues in psychoanalysis: the need for free association
and extensive anamnesis in the context of a relationship between
analyst and patient that allows continued study of the role of
emotional needs in the memories and fantasies of each. In the
psychoanalytic transference therapy Freud was beginning to practice
by the time he wrote The Interpretation of Dreams, no
particular memory could be known with certainty but the web of
connectedness that gradually emerged from the collaboration of
therapist and patient was believed to reveal the salient aspects of
the latter's personality.

One widely cited discussion of Freud's change of position, that of
Masson (1984), refers to Freud's theoretical turn in 1896 as an
active "suppression," rather than either an empirically justified
revision or a defensive distortion, of the seduction theory. On this
view Freud -- recognizing the professional cost of attempting to
confront Victorian pretensions with the reality of child abuse, and
moved also by his shame at the possibility that Fliess's malpractice
with Emma Eckstein (cf. Gay, 1988, pp. 84-85; Schur, 1972, pp. 79-84)
had exacerbated her problems -- focused on the more palatable
alternative view that it was patients' own desires that made them
ill. Masson finds in Freud's letter of September, 1897, evidence of
an "internal reconciliation" to collegial objections he had
adequately dealt with in his 1896 papers (Masson, 1984, p. 110).
While Masson's argument pertaining to Eckstein has interesting
implications for the evaluation of Freud's nascent theory of
transference (cf. Salyard, 1992), it does little justice to the
ambivalence with which Freud had earlier presented the seduction
theory, as Salyard's paper in this set suggests. Furthermore,
Masson's contention that Freud at a crucial juncture gave in to
collegial criticism flies in the face of Freud's lifelong and almost
monomaniacal assumption that his theories would evoke criticism and
his insistence that therein lay some of the evidence for their
correctness. More persuasive are arguments that on the one hand the
empirical basis for assuming prepubertal sexual abuse in every
case was extremely dubious (Garcia, 1987), and on the other that it
was the partly the personal implications of the theory in
light of Freud's self-analysis ("not excluding my own [father]") that
gave him pause and facilitated a theory that underscores the child's,
and blurs the adult's, culpability (Balmary, 1979/1982).

Conclusion

A combination of spotty evidence and his own ambivalence overcame
Freud's seduction theory, and the successor general theory --
psychoanalysis -- has surely done more for psychology and psychiatry
than the specific theory could have. While we are still in doubt over
whether the products of Freud's mature genius belong with Science or
with Art, the subtle reading of psychodynamics begun with The
Interpretation of Dreams continues to provide the hermeneutic
ground for modern thought. Societal attention is again focused on the
psychological consequences of traumatic histories, however, and on
the recurrence of the child's abuse a generation later in the adult's
parenting; and we have in the current literature on post-traumatic
stress disorder and recovered memories a new preoccupation with
"actual" neurosis. An intense debate continues over the prevalence
and the pathogenic import of parent-child incest, and one commentator
has recently suggested that the discussion "has come full circle:
from incest as social fact to incest as unconscious fantasy to incest
as social fact" (Diamond 1989, p. 421). We are again involved as our
own century draws to a close in pained reassessment of the violence
and the seductiveness with which adult society treats the young (cf.
Miller, 1981/1984), and once again it becomes problematic to know how
to distinguish a memory of an actual emotional event from an emotion
transferred to a constructed image of such an event.

Despite Freud's dissatisfaction with the seduction theory, and
despite the superficiality of some recent discussion of his reasons
for replacing it with the less deterministic but far more subtle
propositions of psychoanalysis proper, this early theory deserves
close re-examination. It reveals much about the concerns that
motivated Freud during the most productive period of his life as a
psychological theorist. Furthermore, Freud's careful examination of
the requirements for an adequate theory of specific etiology for the
neuroses remains a milestone in the literature on the effects of
traumatic events on later psychological health. The interrelationship
and relative importance of fantasy and reality, of whether
psychoanalytic data should aspire to narrative or to historical truth
(Spence, 1982) has become one of the most fertile grounds for
interdisciplinary discussion of psychoanalytic ideas. This
proto-psychoanalytic theory of Freud's merits study not only because
it forms an essential early chapter in the history of psychoanalysis,
but also because it presents in a rigorous manner components of any
adequate theory of traumatic etiology. Specific etiology remains a
core problem for psychiatry (Meehl, 1973). Freud's highly original
work on this subject should be part of the burgeoning discussion of
the specific effects of early experience on adult personality. Then
the real work, of building a psychology of persons in which both
contemporary psychodynamics and etiological constructs play a role,
can begin -- with Freud's 1896 "seduction" theory setting some of the
agenda. It is, indeed, a theory for the '90s.

Swales, P.J. (1982). Freud, Minna Bernays, and the conquest of
Rome: New light on the origins of psychoanalysis. New American
Review, 1, 1-23.

Swales, P.J. (1983). Freud, Martha Bernays, and the language of
flowers: Masturbation, cocaine, and the inflation of fantasy.
Privately published by the author.

Swales, P.J. (1989). Freud, Johann Weier, and the status of
seduction: The role of the witch in the conception of fantasy. In L.
Spurling (Ed.). Sigmund Freud: Critical assessments, vol. 1: Freud
and the origins of psychoanalysis. New York: Routledge.
(Originally published privately in 1982)